12 ms·
The F-35 project is a stealth Jobs program that pretends to be a stealth airplane program. Seen through this lens, things are actually going ok. It concentrat
by opwieurposiu 7y ago
The F-35 project is a stealth Jobs program that pretends to be a stealth airplane program. Seen through this lens, things are actually going ok. It concentrates incompetence in the defense sector, where it can do less harm. (as long as we dont get a real war)
- DanTheManPR 7y agoThe F-35 has been highly successful at it's goal of funneling hundreds of billions of dollars into the military industrial complex.
- adventured 7y ago> funneling hundreds of billions of dollars into the military industrial complex What's the total spending on the F-35 program so far, going back to 2006?
- gknoy 7y ago> The total cost of the F-35 program is expected to be $1.5 trillion over its 55-year lifespan As of 2018, the estimated program cost was ~1.5T, or 1500 billion dollars. """The F-35 currently costs between $94 million (F-35A) and $122 million (F-35B) for low-rate initial production run 10, though sustainment cost projections are as big a concern as production costs for a program that is expected to cost $1.5 trillion over its 55-year lifespan.""" https://www.aviationtoday.com/2018/09/04/f-35-program-update/ https://www.aviationtoday.com/2018/09/04/f-35-program-update...
- csb6 7y agoAnd people have the gall to say we can’t afford universal healthcare. “Oh, but now that money is lost, and now we actually can’t afford to spend money on our own citizens,” say the next couple generations of warhawks as we spend $2.7 trillion on a drone army made of caviar. We can do better things with our money.
- jml7c5 7y ago"Through FY2017, the F-35 program has received a total of roughly $122.6 billion of funding in then-year dollars, including roughly $54.7 billion in research and development, about $65.7 billion in procurement, and approximately $2.7 billion in military construction." via https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30563.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30563.pdf
- neximo64 7y agoThat employs and affects millions (directly and indirectly) of people across multiples countries in high deficit areas. Which is the ultimate goal of the project. A plane that may work is merely the bonus of the R&D spend. Countries that don't do regional-deficit spending in this manner (that seems economically inefficient) end up having severe problems, particularly after the GFC. Much of Europe is easily in this bucket. The F35 is part of the reason the US isn't in as much hell economically speaking as Europe is.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- munk-a 7y agoI don't disagree that do-nothing projects can be valuable to society - but defense contractors are an extremely inefficient way to inject money into the economy. Most of that money ends up going into the pockets of people who could find quite decent jobs elsewhere. Redirecting that money to small business grants would provide a much bigger boost to general societal well being.
- Kalium 7y agoSome of it is less about injecting money than it is about maintaining capacity and capability. It's not always about jobs in general, but sometimes about specific jobs. The US defense-industrial complex may not always have a high need for people who can design stealth fighters, but it definitely prefers to keep a few around in case it does suddenly need them. Small business grants may not be a good way of meeting the same need.
- ska 7y agoI suspect there is some truth to this. But I wonder how much of that effort could be directed to more useful infrastructure projects and still maintain skills. The other issue is that some fraction of defense spending seemingly can be viewed as funneling public money into a get-your-friends-rich scheme. I don't think you can find much net upside to that aspect.
- Waterluvian 7y agoThat's an interesting take. And maybe we don't disagree and it's just wording, but I think it's more of a "program to funnel money into the military complex in as many politician's states as could get involved" If you want a jobs program, fix bridges and roads. If you want a "stealth" jobs program, declare it a national security threat and use the military budget too.
- jbob2000 7y agoRepairing bridges and roads doesn't attract weapon systems developers away from other nations. We gotta keep these guys busy so they don't go work for Russia or China
- klodolph 7y agoFrom what I understand, the number of states with jobs related to F-35 production is 50.
- munk-a 7y agoI'm not certain all 50 states have bridges and infrastructure in critical state - but if it isn't all 50 it's really close to all 50.
- astrodust 7y agoIt's 57. Every state and territory has infrastructure that is an absolute shambles. America loves to build things but it sure seems allergic to maintenance.
- dylan604 7y agoMaintenance programs don't grab headlines like the initial program to build does. Unless it's an extremely large package like what Trump proposed (what happened to that one?), it's just not sexy enough to get ink
- 7y ago
- friendlybus 7y agoWhat does a competent fighter jet program look like?
- laydn 7y agoI believe no such thing exists in the western world. Russian fighter jet program costs appear to be orders of magnitude smaller though, at least on paper.
- adventured 7y agoThe Su-57 has a supposed ~$35-$45 million unit cost (versus closer to $78m for eg the recent F35A planes [1]). If you adjust that to the US economic output per capita figures, you're looking at up to a quarter of a billion dollars per plane equivalent for the Su-57. A crushing sum, in other words, for the Russians and their economic capabilities. However, the Russians sold Su-35s to China at a cost of $83 million a few years ago. So the quoted Su-57 numbers certainly appear fraudulent. The real unit cost is probably twice the claims. There is minimal transparency in such things as it pertains to Russia. So far it appears they can't afford or deliver their supposedly cost effecient plane: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russias-stealth-fighter-awesome%E2%80%94%E2%80%8C-it-cant-afford-lot-them-111136 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russias-stealth-fight... [1] https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/10/29/in-newly-inked-deal-f-35-prices-fall-to-78-million-a-copy/ https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/10/29/in-newly-inked-de...
- Xixi 7y agoIt's very hard to compare sales figures with fly-away costs as they measure completely different things. Sales figures usually include many extras like weapons, simulators, training, support, spare parts, spare engines, integration with other (usually local) weapons, and other custom developments that can massively raise the bill. Conversely fly-away costs tend to exclude everything to look as small as possible: things like radars, helmet mounted displays, sometimes even engines are left aside.
- Polyisoprene 7y ago
- unapologetic 7y agoin doing so it leeches money from places it would be more useful and further enriches and entrenches defense contractors.
- rodgerd 7y agoJust think, the US could have had universal free education. But instead it has fighters that don't work.
- tromp 7y agoor universal basic income...
- wonderwonder 7y agoAmazing how we always have money for the military industrial complex and the fossil fuel industry but never for new social programs.
- AdrianB1 7y agoThere is nothing in the F35 program preventing universal free education: free education does not cost anything (it is free), so the money spent on the program is not impacting it. /s
- BinaryIdiot 7y agoI worked on a large DoD contract where there was a core of about 12-20 people doing the majority of the work and about 140 additional people just... having a job. The legal requirements to collecting money on defense contracts pretty much always does this.
- wonderwonder 7y agoI know someone personally who's company was hired as a subcontractor to one of the majors on the F-35 project. He was put in a room to do nothing. They forgot he was in a meeting once and he overheard them saying that they were just hiring the subcontractors to get the government schedule people off of their backs, they were not there to actually do anything. So happy my tax dollars are going towards this rather than feeding the hungry or providing shelter to homeless kids.
- AdrianB1 7y agoPart of the problem is you; not a personal attack, just an explanation: if you would be more concerned about your tax dollars staying in your pocket, you would be much more careful with all the government spending and putting much more pressure on doing the right thing. If your position is "the government take my tax money, at least I wish they spent it on something good" then you are less involved, it's no longer your money and you care less.
- wonderwonder 7y agoThis is an odd statement. How do you know what my level of concern is with my tax money staying in my pocket. No matter the level of concern, I still have to pay taxes and the amount does not change based on my level of concern. "you would be much more careful with all the government spending and putting much more pressure on doing the right thing"? what exactly can I do to be more careful about government spending besides voting for my preferred candidate? Are you fully in control of everywhere your tax dollars are spent? Do you protest every dollar that is spent on a program you don't agree with? All in all an odd statement but best of luck to you and I wish you well.
- gherkinnn 7y agoMilitary spending is the Republicans’ wellfare. Or something. While it might sound a tad simplistic, I can’t but see some truth in it. This is also a classic: https://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/18/congress-again-buys-abrams-tanks-the-army-doesnt-want.html https://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/18/congress-agai... (2014)
- tsimionescu 7y agoWell, apparently military spending has long been a method for directly financing companies and research that the federal government likes, such as the beginnings of computer technology.
- pstuart 7y agoYes, there's been technical benefits to this spending, but it is a corrupt and immoral practice (guns vs. butter).
- shrewduser 7y agothe point of guns vs butter is that there's a ideal balance of the two that maximises output. it's not a moral argument.
- pstuart 7y agoWar is a moral argument. Health and welfare of society is a moral argument. As for "maximizing output", I'm failing to see big returns here. Afghanistan? Iraq? Vietnam? The only output that was maximized was cashflow to the military industrial complex. I do believe in national security but the way we do it is not only inefficient, but manufactures more insecurity that feeds into the cycle.
- tsimionescu 7y agoMy point was different: it's that some of the so-called military spending is in reality simply a way for the federal government to fund research it wants done, without any relation to actual (direct) military applications. The sad reality is that it is easier for people to accept a massive military budget than to accept a large National Endowment for the Sciences, or to accept direct government grants for a strategy of technical development (that would be 'government interfering in the market'). Of course, this reality was created through a lot of fear-mongering propaganda, and through a lot of anti-"socialist" propaganda.
- bjourne 7y agoAnother way to see it is as a conduit for funneling tax payer money to the billionaire class. Seen that way, it's a huge success.